Talk:Amerikabomber

Spelling
The spelling "Amerika Bomber" is wrong. "Bomber" is the same in German and English, while "America" is written with "c" in English and "k" in German. In the tiltle, "Amerika" is written with "k", so it is the German spelling. This means that the whole title is German. But in German, this is one word: Amerikabomber or Amerika-Bomber. So you can use the title "Amerika-Bomber" (German) or "America Bomber" (English). But definitely not "Amerika Bomber". That would be like "Sauer Kraut" or "Brat Wurst". --Harald Meier (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but the article title should be what a reliable source calls the thing, not what it's correctly called in German. If you have any reliable sources that use the terms you've mentioned, bring them to the discussion. Xyl 54 (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The point Mr Meier wants to make is that "Amerika Bomber" is neither correct English nor correct German. One should either use the original German project designation ("Amerika-Bomber") or its correct English translation. Regarding the former, any basic German grammar textbook could be used as reference, fully justifying Mr Meier.


 * Television? The word is half Greek and half Latin. No good will come of this device." - CP Scott (1936)
 * Support as per Harald. This should be moved, the title isn't proper German now. --77.6.187.130 (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Has this been resolved at all? It should be moved.--Simen113 (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved to Amerikabomber, as per the comments of the majority above.


 * "Amerika-Bomber" is "Denglisch" and/or a neologism.


 * Amerikabomber is the German name (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber), a literal translation of this into English is "America Bomber".


 * A grammatically correct alternative might be something like America bomber (Nazi Germany) or Amerika bomber, although these are perhaps even less desirable.


 * Grant &#124;  Talk  10:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I fixed the spelling/italics to be consistent with this new title. The incoming links should also be fixed. Widefox ; talk 23:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

David Irving?
David Irving is not a reliable source. Why are his claims being given any credence here?


 * Whether he is or not, the whole Huckepack Projekt (Piggyback Project) section needs to be rewritten at the very least, there are multiple paragraphs rehashing the same information over and over. -- Resuna (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A few copy edits
The second section of this article was marked for copyediting. I've tightened up some language -- a few paragraphs need more precise citations and hopefully someone with access to the references can make those citations. Gofigure41 02:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)

Combat Radius
The given combat radius seems to be incorrect and instead is the "round trip" figure. Combat radius is the one-way distance from the origin to the target. It assumes a return trip but that return isn't included in the given figure. For instance, if the bomber left from Germany you would be looking at a combat radius of about 3,800 nautical miles (7,037 kilometers). gnartS (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Resources
The article states that the Luftwaffe had shrinking production 1942 onward but there is no reference for it. In fact production of planes was never an issue but low quality and quantity of fuel plus a dwindling pool of experienced pilots resulted in a lack of pilots capable of flying the planes. Production remained at high levels due to a structure of subcontracting individual parts of the plane to various businesses. It would only be assembled at airfields when all the pieces were present. So the strategic bombing campaign didn't hurt production of military machines do much as it hurt railways to transport the machines and natural resources. It also was responsible for severely depleting the Luftwaffe of pilots due to Germany's doctrine of keeping pilots flying missions constantly until they are injured, captured or killed. The allies used a rotating doctrine of serving certain amounts of time or number of missions then bringing in new pilots to learn from the experienced pilots ensuring a constant stream of competent airmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.245.197.190 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What was the potential target in Galesburg, Illinois?
It sure wasn't the BNSF Railway, which didn't exist until 1996. 205.144.215.145 (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Fernkampfflugzeug correct official name for Amerikabomber scheme
I got a copy of Dan Sharp's magazine Luftwaffe: Secret Bombers of the Luftwaffe and on page 29 there is a section about the Amerikabomber that says that there is no evidence from German archival records that Adolf Hitler's requirement for a a Nazi heavy bomber capable of reaching Manhattan was termed Amerikabomber, noting that a November 1952 issue of the magazine Flying is the first magazine to use the term Amerikabomber for a Nazi long-range bomber, calling the unbuilt Junkers EF 132 project "Amerika Bomber" on page 15, while also pointing out that the association of the Messerschmitt Me 264 with the term Amerikabomber seems to come from a March 1943 speech by Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering. Otherwise, the magazine by Dan Sharp makes clear that the Luftwaffe requirement for a heavy bomber with enough range to hit Manhattan was christened Fernkampfflugzeug, and that referring to such a program as Amerikabomber was a semi-mistranslation of Goering's March 1943 speech about the Me 264. Does anyone feel open to changing the title of this article Amerikabomber to Fernkampfflugzeug?70.175.133.224 (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Where in Speer?
I can find no reference in either ‘Secret Diaries’ or ‘Inside the Third Reich’ by Albert Speer to any plan for bombing the USA.

What may have been the case is that Hitler called for a long-range bomber that could reach all the capital cities of his enemies, ‘even the USA, if necessary’. But I can find no reference to that, even in the ‘Table Talk’, where Hitler was known to ramble on. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:39CF:2BCC:17AE:1AFF (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Atomic bomber?
The Introduction here says (and has been saying for a while) that German plans included "including using the Amerikabomber to deliver proposed German nuclear weapons". I’ve deleted this ; it has been unsourced for more than a year, but more than that, it’s total bollocks. It was added in July 2010 as a summary of the Atomic bomber section that was here then; that was added in October 2008 by some Single Purpose Account, the source for which seems to have been David Irving! In fact German nuclear research was years behind the Allies, and it is pretty certain they were not even aware of the possibility of an air-dropped nuclear weapon: Their thinking up until August 1945 (when they were proved dramatically wrong) was that the critical mass for a chain reaction was a couple of tons, and the aim of their research was a power source, not a weapon. Anyway, I’ve taken it out… Xyl 54 (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)